Scotland v Australia 12Nov16 Saturday

[RugbyReg]

You talk about the Phipps, Foley and Folau combination.

Until last week Folau has been playing poorly (for 12 months)

I don't think that's accurate. I think he was one of our best in the England series (and in fact the GAGR Player of the Year awards support this). He's been noticeably improved this last couple of games too. Just a little quiet patch in the middle (coincidentally when QC (Quade Cooper) was 10 and Genia was 9?)

 

[Scrubber2050]

Let's be fair - we saw improvement against abs in last bledisloe and in wales game - our 2 most recent games. In defence of the coaches they have perhaps introduced new styles of play which take time for players to adjust to. We have seen continued improvement over the last two games so what is not to like about that? Do we worry about where the wallabies were 10 games ago or in their most recent 2 games? I mean really?

Lot to be positive about - as one poster said rugby is for enjoyment - not to suck on a lemon. And lot to like about last two games wallabies played in terms of improvement? Could ask glass half empty or half full.but I think some supporters can't even see the glass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last 2 games - yeah I agree but prior to that was just shithouse. Don't even talk about last AB game - we got flogged 6 tries to one. You cannot put perfume on a turd.

All I said was that if we (backs) perform in the next 3 games like we did in the last match then Larkbam deserves some real kudos - Gee pretty hard to arhue that point, surely.

The coach/s have had the reins for what 2 years now. Sure we did pretty well at RWC last year, 12 months ago but 2016 has not been kind to us. As Harrison said before the game - its time to forget RWC and move on

 

[Scrubber2050]

I don't think that's accurate. I think he was one of our best in the England series (and in fact the GAGR Player of the Year awards support this). He's been noticeably improved this last couple of games too. Just a little quiet patch in the middle (coincidentally when QC (Quade Cooper) was 10 and Genia was 9?)

Quiet patch of several games.

Israel would receive some of GAGR posters votes if he didn't touch the ball or make a tackle

 

[KOB1987]

Last 2 games - yeah I agree but prior to that was just shithouse. Don't even talk about last AB game - we got flogged 6 tries to one. You cannot put perfume on a turd.

I think it's fair to point to an improvement in the Wallabies performance in that game provided it comes with the disclaimer that it's referring to the first 60 minutes and not the end result.

 

[fatprop]

Pfitzy, I consider errors to be things like charge downs, intercepts, missed touch finders and handling errors (though Foley's greater frequency in this it's so marginal that I wouldn't consider it by itself).

What do you consider a lower error rate to mean?

do you factor in minutes in the bin as well?

 

[dru]

All I said was that if we (backs) perform in the next 3 games like we did in the last match then Larkbam deserves some real kudos - Gee pretty hard to arhue that point, surely.

I'm happy with the gist of what you say, but the devil is in the detail. As others have said, offense does NOT equal backs.

I want to see the two pods continue to advance the line and to see the outside loosies continue to be effective there. The point I would argue is that the back moves come after that.

Very promising improvement over the last two tests. And yes, if this continues over the next three I will need to re-consider my thoughts on Larkham. Looking good at the moment.

 

[Viking]

I don't know if you really appreciate how difficult a thing this is to achieve. All four halves would have to be able to alter their style of play, the way they have played together for very large periods of time (years). I don't find it surprising that Genia and Foley don't click the same way Phipps, Foley and Folau do. And i'm pretty certain that Phipps would not at all complement Cooper's style.

Undervalue developed relationships at your own peril, after all, its a team game.

Disagree. Just to once again use the All Blacks as an example.

TJ Perenna and A.Smith - both different styles and can both play well with Barrett. Smith isn't prefered because he has a better combination with Barrett, he is preffered because he is better. Both halfback can seamlessly fit into their structures.

Now look at there flyhalfs. Cruden & Barrett and Sopaga- they couldn't have more contrasting styles yet all are able to play effectively with A.Smith and TJ . Most are all from different franchises.

Combinations should only be a "slight" advantage. SLIGHT! As @Braveheart touched on, structures are far more important.

Let choose the best player for the job, not he one who's played more games with the player next to them.

 

[Twoilms]

Disagree. Just to once again use the All Blacks as an example.

TJ Perenna and A.Smith - both different styles and can both play well with Barrett. Smith isn't prefered because he has a better combination with Barrett, he is preffered because he is better. Both halfback can seamlessly fit into their structures.

Now look at there flyhalfs. Cruden & Barrett and Sopaga- they couldn't have more contrasting styles yet all are able to play effectively with A.Smith and TJ . Most are all from different franchises.

Combinations should only be a "slight" advantage. SLIGHT! As @Braveheart touched on, structures are far more important.

Let choose the best player for the job, not he one who's played more games with the player next to them.

I mean, are we the fucking All Blacks? no. It's all well and good to constantly point to the All Blacks and bleat on about 'this is how they do it, we should all do it the same way' etc, but the reality is our players are far more limited and we have far less depth.

We also don't have the training consistency they've implemented throughout their club football.

No, it's not necessary to rely on super rugby combinations and it is possible to have good combinations develop at test level. It is just stupid to ignore already developed combinations and not use those to our advantage because of some lofty ideal that 'oh we should be good enough to instantly develop connections at test level'. Despite the fact that we aren't most of the time.

Edit: Structure is all well and good when you are on the front foot and you have time to think and organise, but when you are under the gun as we are against NZ or the English rush defense, instinctive understanding is equally as important.

 

[PeterK]

To me it is very simple.

Long term, i.e building towards 2019, which combination of halves will perform the best , i.e who will develop to be the best.

First to decide that you need to evaluate do you think the individual player is good enough and will last to 2019?

Genia, Cooper and Foley yes. Phipps I have my doubts.

Lourwen , Lucas, Stirzaker, Gordon could all over take him.

That said you pay the short term pain to develop the combo, I don't care who is better as a combo now and not look towards potential. Otherwise you may be stuck with a less than optimal combination just because time was not put into it.

You should not pick Foley because the half is Phipps etc.
You need to develop the alternatives.

On the other hand if you know Phipps is not long term that you are looking at replacing him as soon as a couple on the horizon improve , then sure play the 10 who works best as a comb right then and there since this is a short term selection anyway.

 

[amirite]

Whilst Cooper/Genia and Phipps/Foley have spent more time around each other, all 4 have been in Wallaby camps together for years, and played games together.

I believe in the value of combinations to a point, particularly when building a team from scratch, but it's just not a factor here. Form and playing styles are.

 

[Viking]

I mean, are we the fucking All Blacks? no. It's all well and good to constantly point to the All Blacks and bleat on about 'this is how they do it, we should all do it the same way' etc, but the reality is our players are far more limited and we have far less depth.

We also don't have the training consistency they've implemented throughout their club football.

No, it's not necessary to rely on super rugby combinations and it is possible to have good combinations develop at test level. It is just stupid to ignore already developed combinations and not use those to our advantage because of some lofty ideal that 'oh we should be good enough to instantly develop connections at test level'. Despite the fact that we aren't most of the time.

Edit: Structure is all well and good when you are on the front foot and you have time to think and organise, but when you are under the gun as we are against NZ or the English rush defense, instinctive understanding is equally as important.

But I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for our current lot. Genia/Foley was successful in the RWC. Phipps/Foley obviously works too - something it doesn't though despite there "combination".

So I can't see why Phipps/Cooper couldn't carve up Wales the same? Cooper with fast front-foot ball can work wonders too.

To use the "combinations" as a selection criteria in these cases should have little bearing - at least in my opinion.

Maybe the combinations will come into play against tougher opposition like NZ and England - but you know what is worse, a flyhalf who can't kick or a half-back who can't pass, poor defensive/attacking structures.

 

[Micheal]

Whens the team announced?

 

[Scoey]

Not soon enough.

We desperately need to move on from whinging about who Chieka might pick to who Chieka did pick!

 

[wamberal]

CHEIKA.

 

[Scoey]

Mate, I'm 38 years old, I'm reasonably well read, I have a tertiary education and both of my parents and my wife are teachers. All of this and I still couldn't tell you if it's their or thier. If it was going to sink in, it would've by now. So whether it's Chieka or Cheika is probably somewhat beyond me as trivial as it may sound.
I can tell you I'll try harder though if it will help you sleep more comfortably?

 

[Lindommer]

You can spell their/thier any way you like, S, but getting people's names wrong is most impolite. If you're ever unsure, do a search first.

 

[Micheal]

You can spell their/thier any way you like, S, but getting people's names wrong is most impolite. If you're ever unsure, do a search first.

Is it really impolite to mispell a public figures name on a forum dedicated to talking about that class of public figures? Will he ever read it? Nup. Would he even care? Highly doubt it. Play on.

It's not like we don't know who Scoeys referring to. In Year 12 I helped a couple of otherwise pretty intelligent blokes with English as it wasn't their forte. One of them spelt his creative stories' protagonist 'Jhon' instead of 'John'. He was just a really fucking bad speller.

It doesn't come naturally to everyone. Don't be a prick.

 

[Dalai Ninja]

Quiet patch of several games.

Israel would receive some of GAGR posters votes if he didn't touch the ball or make a tackle

That's balanced by the fact that he'd receive none of some GAGR posters votes if he played a blinder.

 

[Scoey]

You can spell their/thier any way you like, S, but getting people's names wrong is most impolite. If you're ever unsure, do a search first.

FFS. Correcting spelling on an Internet forum is petty and a pet hate of mine. I tried to light heartedly deal with it but sure, call me impolite for spelling his name incorrectly and in the same sentence, refer to me as 'S'.
Pull your head in and lighten up.

 

[Sully]

You can spell their/thier any way you like, S, but getting people's names wrong is most impolite. If you're ever unsure, do a search first.

Some might say yelling at some one on the internet is also impolite.